Castillo v. McFadden’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.3d 882 · 2004
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In my 19 years on the trial bench, I have never ever admitted a tape like that in evidence. I’m really concerned about it. I actually thought at first that counsel has agreed ahead of time, had exchanged transcripts, ... that there really wasn’t a big objection to admission of these tapes.... I was, therefore, shocked when I started to hear this tape and read some of the things on this, the transcripts. The man invoking his rights was shown to the jury, his arrest, his pat down. I mean I would never have admitted any of this.... I’ve never admitted a tape like this before. Never. Never.... I can’t get over it. This will never hold up if there is any appeal, never in a million years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Castillo v. McFadden“The bottom line is, is that he had a brain injury.... That could have only happened while he was with you.... The injury has been narrowed down [to occurring] during the time that you had him.... [The injury] was so acute that it had to happen within maybe a two hour period.... And you were the only one that was with him.... And that injury is consistent with either being shaken very hard or thrown down ... or something to that effect that would of caused ... his brain to bleed.... That’s all scientifically proved at this point.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Castillo v. McFadden“failure to exhaust” in the majority opinion and in this dissent. 3 . We may examine both Castillo’s briefs to the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court because, with the exception of life-sentence or capital cases,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Castillo v. McFadden
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.